flyfffandomcom-20200222-history
Flyff Wiki talk:Policy
So, shall we get to the discussion of those policies? Tv4375 01:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC) ::Alright, sounds good :) I've already set up a category so we can tag the policies, Category:Policy. I'm thinking that the following questions need to be resolved: :#'Validity': How can we tell whether an article is valid or not? Which should we keep, merge or delete? I think one way would be to have a Statement of Purpose. What does this wiki aim to do? To provide a factual account of all things pertaining to Flyff? How far can opinions intrude into fact? What kind of quality should we expect? :##'Statement of Purpose': An example would be something like: :###The goal of the unofficial Flyff Wiki is to provide readers with a large variety of high-quality, factual information. :##This could then be followed by stuff which elaborates in more detail, such as what we mean by high quality, what we mean by factual, etc. :#'Copying': The Flyff wiki contains a vast amount of content. How should we deal with this? Both wiki's are released under the GFDL, but that doesn't mean we can simply copy it straight from one to another, at least not without attribution. I'd say that straight copy&paste should be barred, but the use of common knowledge, such as looking up equipment stats and such, is fine. :#'Vandalism': obviously we want to keep that down, but it would be good to have a clear definition of vandalism. It might be a good idea to take a look at Wikipedia's. :##'Banning': On a related note, how should we determine who to ban? I can only see banning vandals at the moment; perhaps after a certain number of offenses a ban should be issued. :##'Protecting': Pages which are frequently vandalized may need to be protected. If so, what would be the criteria to determine such? After a certain amount of vandalism in a given time period? When, if ever, should they be unprotected? :#'Neutral Point of View': This is again copied from Wikipedia but in our case, it'd probably be something like "Ya, bj's are da bestest! All other classes sUck!", supporting one class versus others. It could cover other areas though (which I can't think of at the moment). ::Whether we should have these as guidelines which are suggested to be followed, or policies which are actively enforced, I'm not too sure. :#'Subpaging': When is it appropriate to create a subpage, and when should it simply have its own article? :#'Categories': Should these ever be pluralized, or use synonyms of groups/lists? When should something be placed in an existing category, and when should a new category be created? :##I'd say that as categories, it's obvious that they're lists and they should all be singular. :#'Templates': I would have their use encouraged, making it simpler to change the format later on, as well as saving people the time of copy&pasting almost the same code again and again. :#'Redirects': When is making a redirect appropriate? When should an existing redirect be deleted? :##I'd have redirects made for a variety of misspellings of a desired article, as well as abbreviations. Disambiguation pages might also be useful for similar names. :#'Building the Web': Linking keywords to articles, such as "Billposters can equip Sticks and Knuckles". However, I'd say that only the first example of these words need to be linked, not all of them in the article, otherwise readers would be swamped in a wave of blue. ::There's a lot of good policies out in Wikipedia, but a lot of them just don't apply to our case, and others aren't useful right now. But I think this would make a good start ^-^ ::--RubyDragon 03:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC) :::I agree with many of these policies, and I think any editors that choose to come will agree as well. We're at a good start. I'd like to add these, as well. ::::#'Censorship in Community Pages': What are we going to let people get away with saying? We don't want people to come in only to be disgusted by someone putting filth on their user page or community forums. However, we must have some freedom of speech. Where will the line be drawn, if at all? ::::##'Swearing': This comes to mind instantly when you say censorship. I am not suggesting censorship policies to protect any minors who may come, but to keep a certain atmosphere. It's quite hard to take someone's point seriously if they are shouting obscenities every second word. I feel that since this is a FlyFF wiki, we should take actions similar to what is done in game. (Except, I don't imagine that we'll allow it to be bypassed so easily as it is in FlyFF) ::::##'Privacy of Players and Editors': This one is from the Runescape Wiki, but it's a respectable policy. To have people just talking about other players in a condescending manner is just wrong, even if he or she doesn't go to the wiki. If a person's name is brought up and something shameful or revealing is said about this person, I feel we should censor it for privacy's sake. Pictures are no different. We do need pictures of every class, but it's not fair to use someone else's character. Perhaps we could use screen shots with the player's name and guild either edited out or turned off in game, unless of course the uploader has used their own character. At which point, the choice is theirs. ::::##'Discrimination': Many people find racism and discrimination to be incredibly disgusting. I think that above all else, we should keep such things to a minimum. ::::##'Obscene Images': It should go without saying that we don't want overly violent or sexual images on the wiki. Such images should be removed as soon as they are found. I feel the bar should be set at what the characters in game wear simply for an example on what each class would look like at the later levels. ::::#'In Game Events': Many wikis of MMO games have their own unofficial events in game. Would we have such congregations? If so, what would be done? How often would we have such events? ::::##'Wiki Guild': I think the idea of having a guild in game for editors and users of the wiki is kind of good. We would have to take a census of what server is most used among wiki users, though. Is such a thing feasible? ::::That's all I can really think of at this moment. Are these good ideas? Tv4375 16:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC) ::*Censorship, swearing, discrimination and obscene images should be probably be in the Statement of Purpose, defining what is a "high-quality" article, and what is not. On the other hand, that wouldn't say anything about contributors -- so probably something like "Be Nice", which involves not insulting other contributors and respecting their privacy. ::*As for in-game events and a wiki guild, I think that's thinking a bit too far in advance, considering that right now, it's only the two of us ;) although if more people get going, those sound pretty good. ::*I'll put up some preliminary policy pages, feel free to change them or discuss in more detail on the talk page. :::--RubyDragon 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)